BostonNazgul wrote:Make sure to mention senario concerns as well when you think about your email. A lot of the players here have voiced concerns over certain ones and any input on that would allow them to make for a more enjoyable GT.

I'm going to write Dave a fairly lengthy email with a number of suggestions on how to improve the circuit next year. Scenario issue will be one of them, although I'm more focused on some rule improvements necessitated by evil vs evil and good vs good matchups.

Also, i had been kicking this aroud in my head, it may be too much to have at a GT or too complicated, but maybe have a sixth game, thats sorta off the record, as a bonus. The game would be a 2v2 game, with randomly assigned teammates (taking into consideration army themes) might be fun, might be too much, just something. Also, have a seperate award for it, kinda like a Fun Game Award.

I like this idea in theory, just not sure how we could pull it off. I suspect the majority of players might not want such a game built into the schedule. Eventually if LOTR grows we might get something like the doubles tournaments run for the other systems.

Things we ought to mention include the exclusion of scenarios like sieze the prize, number of events and a counted- participation cap, and the effects of special rules (ie: harbinger of evil affects all enemies, the firstborn are terrifying to all enemies, not just evil players).
I plan to include all of these in my e-mail, but I think they would carry more force if many of us mentioned them.

JLeong wrote:Things we ought to mention include the exclusion of scenarios like sieze the prize, number of events and a counted- participation cap, and the effects of special rules (ie: harbinger of evil affects all enemies, the firstborn are terrifying to all enemies, not just evil players). I plan to include all of these in my e-mail, but I think they would carry more force if many of us mentioned them.

That's a good point. Let's brainstorm on these a little by discussing -- hopefully one thread will be manageable

Scenarios -- What are your concerns about scenarios?

Mine are (1) Seize the Prize is too squirrelly --usually army list or luck dependent.
(2) To the Death -- too likely to eliminate the possibility of a major victory in certain matchups. Often simply can't be finished. There are numerous pitched-battle type scenarios, we don't need this one.

Rules -- What are your rules concerns?

1. The points resolution rule should be retained, and needs to be more prominently displayed in the tournament rules handouts. At Baltimore a couple veteran players didn't know it existed.

2. Good vs Good/Evil vs Evil -- the current roll the dice rule doesn't work. We posted in more detail about this earlier, but there are so many problems with it that it should be junked in favor of something more logical.

Agree? Disagree? Other concerns?

Events Points Cap For Circuit -- Do we all agree this is a good thing?

I do -- in terms of the cap number that would depend on the total number of events, but if we did 7 events again, I'd say either 4 or 5 is logical.

Total agreement on the seize the prize. What could be fun is, at the start of each round, the judges make the die roll like in legions. No one knows till 10 min. before the game, makes players think about ALL the senarios, not just the popular. (make sure to take out the veto-d ones thou before the roll)

1. points resolution: you mean, if the senario comes out to a draw, then u total kill points/ points that got off the board etc right?

I agree with this if that is what you mean, ended up with a draw when point totals coulda put me at a minor victory in baltimore. It is more of a hardcore player rule, but that is what a tournament is there for, its a lot of money not to be picky about getting the right results.

2. goodvsgood/evil vs evil: I dont understand the concern with this. Do you mean, when doing 50/50 rolls, good 1,2,3; evil4,5,6 or somethingelse?

Points cap:
I agree with this whole heartedly, allows for more competition and less just showing up too everything. It would probably benefit ALL systems if this was implimented. Also, maybe give GD a lower rating % than tournaments, fewer people attend and more a a chance to feed scores. Do they do this already?

ONe of my small concerns is setting standards for terrain. I know it makes for a good ice breaker to ask your opp. how he plays certain pieces of terrain, but it sometimes irks me when, say a ranged army really pushes for the best rules that benefit them for say a forest piece. then again the trees not being stuck to the bases makes it a pain to move people thru. Playing by the tree is a tree and you go by LOS, then you might have to take turns setting up each tree on a forest square so its even.

For instance, you set the rule that its 2 in the way rolls for shooting through a forest, and 1 for shooting into/from. you move your archers into a forest but are stuck rolling in the way rolls shooting out even thou they are on the edge and could clearly aim pretty well.

Plus, I have yet to play in a tournament where the inclines to get up a hill are called difficult. I know that its kinda a forgotten rule, but I feel it makes the hill terrain piece actually more usable than just a LOS blocker. I know horse armies will disagree with this one.

I guess whichever rules set you use they have their advantages but I would like to see clear cut guide lines for terrain.

febber wrote:That's a good point. Let's brainstorm on these a little by discussing -- hopefully one thread will be manageable

Scenarios -- What are your concerns about scenarios?

Mine are (1) Seize the Prize is too squirrelly --usually army list or luck dependent.(2) To the Death -- too likely to eliminate the possibility of a major victory in certain matchups. Often simply can't be finished. There are numerous pitched-battle type scenarios, we don't need this one.

I was the forutnate receipient of a favorable sieze the prize match-up but I agree its not a good scenario to assess your ability as a general. I'd vote for not including it.

To the Death! I'm okay with keeping that scenario, as its a classic way to play the game. As I recall, there are other scenarios (Contest of Champion) that also play out to the death of an opponent, so I think any concerns you'd have on To the Death! would carry over to CoC.

I was worried that there would be no way Jamie and I would finish our to the death scenario, especially as I was very, very deliberate when it came to initiating contact. However, even with my very stubborn advances, we finished with at least 30 minutes left over. While this could be probablematic for a GD tournament, I think its fine for a GT.

febber wrote:Rules -- What are your rules concerns?

1. The points resolution rule should be retained, and needs to be more prominently displayed in the tournament rules handouts. At Baltimore a couple veteran players didn't know it existed.

2. Good vs Good/Evil vs Evil -- the current roll the dice rule doesn't work. We posted in more detail about this earlier, but there are so many problems with it that it should be junked in favor of something more logical.

I agree on both accounts! Regardless of the system that is used for GvG and EvE, its needs to be clearly defined in the rules set. Like I mentioned earlier, we had different interpretations at the Chicago GT.

febber wrote:Events Points Cap For Circuit -- Do we all agree this is a good thing?

I do -- in terms of the cap number that would depend on the total number of events, but if we did 7 events again, I'd say either 4 or 5 is logical.

I agree, makes logical sense. You'd like to "reward" people for playing multiple events but that shouldn't necessarily dictate who wins all the accolades. Now granted, Frank excelled in every tournament he went to so its just becuase he showed up at every event that he won the overall.

I think another topic to consider is the overall concept of GvG and EvE. I think we've all come to accept it. However, I'd still be in favor of finding a system that allows for (or maximizes the chances of) playing good versus evil.

One thing I suggested for Adepticon (I may have only suggested it in passing) was to have a "Good" Champion and "Evil" Champion and have them play in a "final" battle. You could essentially have separate rankings for Good and Evil armies and have all the top tables playing games with the tops of the other faction. Logistically, it might not work though.

BostonNazgul wrote:Total agreement on the seize the prize. What could be fun is, at the start of each round, the judges make the die roll like in legions. No one knows till 10 min. before the game, makes players think about ALL the senarios, not just the popular. (make sure to take out the veto-d ones thou before the roll)

Very interesting idea. I like it! I think that would very challenging for all the generals involved.

BostonNazgul wrote:I guess whichever rules set you use they have their advantages but I would like to see clear cut guide lines for terrain.

This is another very good topic. I'd like to have "agreed" upon rules for terrain.

I'd also like to petition for more terrain and/or more LOTR specific terrain

Another possibility, is to "juggle" the terrain around tables. If you are someone like Frank, Greg, or Josh (and others) at Chicago, you played on the same 1-2 tables for all your games. That meant you have the same terrain and you get used to placing it and using it. At Chicago, there was a table at the end that wasn't used that had a cool little lake. I would have been nice and a challenge to juggle the terrain selection at each table. If you are good enough to stay at the #1 table, you should be good enough to handle more random terrain!

I really like the idea of random scenario generation. We would need to remove scenarios like seize the prize- scenarios that do not reflect the gamer's mind and ability.
"To the Death!" can be easily replaced with "The High Ground." As long as there is at LEAST one pitched-battle situation (Meeting Engagement for example), we're set.

The victory points rules should be written clearly into the rules packet.

We really need to set up defined rules for terrain, especially woods. The way I play woods, (Frank, Brent, Drew, and others I know feel the same) is:
A tree is a tree! The base represents difficult terrain. If a model is trying to shoot from the edge of the woods, and no tree is clearly in his way- no test. If a group is trying to volley out of woods, then each shot that hits MUST pass an in-the-way test. The same applies for models who fire out of the second rank of trees (he is in base contact with one tree, but there is another partially obstructing his shot). The rules are clear on the subject. The Warhammer influence over players who treat an entire wooded area (base, even where there are no trees on the edges) as barriers must be put to death.

Good vs. Good and Evil v. Evil conflicts should be addressed specifically in teh rules packet. All ideological rules (Harbinger of evil, lineage of the firstborn, etc) should apply to enemies. Good armies, even when fighting another good army, should not be able to shoot into combat. Evil armies should always be able to.

The points cap is a great idea too. It should scale with the number of events. Ideally, the max is 4-6.

I would LOVE to see LotR-specific terrain features. Rohirrim houses, Gondorian ruins, Mordor orc camps, Hobbit holes, and the rest would be great! Trees should be glued into a fixed position on their large bases (or at least have slots like the plastic ones do). We also should fight to keep the traditional trees. While the new plastic trees are nice, the more traditional foliage works FAR better for LotR. Leave all brick-wall line of sight forests out of our games.

It's good that we are discussing these things. I think we can help each other create suggestions to include in our emails.

BostonNazgul wrote:What could be fun is, at the start of each round, the judges make the die roll like in legions. No one knows till 10 min. before the game, makes players think about ALL the senarios, not just the popular. (make sure to take out the veto-d ones thou before the roll)

I think the reason they preselect is that they like to have all the scenarios printed in the tournament handouts for ease of reference and if they randomly selected they would have to print a lot more of them. Of course, they could just tell us we needed to bring Legions. But I like your idea.

1. points resolution: you mean, if the senario comes out to a draw, then u total kill points/ points that got off the board etc right?

Actually it applies to games in which, due to time restraints, neither the victory nor draw conditions of Legions are met. Some scenarios will never need the points resolution (Recon, Domination, Contest of Champions), but the pitched battle type scenarios (kill ___% of your opponent, etc) often do.

Example -- at Adepticon in Leave None Alive my opponent was down to 3 warriors when the game ended and I had inflicted casualties at about a 4-1 ratio. I got a draw. Under the points conditions in To the Death, that would have been a minor victory.

2. goodvsgood/evil vs evil: I dont understand the concern with this. Do you mean, when doing 50/50 rolls, good 1,2,3; evil4,5,6 or somethingelse?

The issue is that under the tournament rules the roll decided who would be good and evil for ALL purposes, including shooting into combat, special rules like harbinger of evil, etc. There are some ramifications of this that I don't think GW recognized.

Points cap: I agree with this whole heartedly, allows for more competition and less just showing up too everything. It would probably benefit ALL systems if this was implimented. Also, maybe give GD a lower rating % than tournaments, fewer people attend and more a a chance to feed scores. Do they do this already?

The change if implemented would be for all systems.

Last year GD tourneys counted the same as GTs in LOTR (although not in the other systems). I got 300 for finishing 1st overall and best general at Baltimore GD, and due to very fortunate matchups, it was the easiest tournament win I've ever had. Gary Lane got the same 300 points for 1st overall and best general at the Las Vegas GT and that was a marathon by comparison. Jamie only got 275 points (in the final stats, after adjustment) for 1st overall and player's choice at Chicago. That just doesn't make sense to me.

However, having said that, if a points cap is adopted then lowering the points for GD tournaments would not make sense. It would basically be the death of the GD tourneys. If you could only go to 3 events for time and financial reasons, why would you go to a GD instead of a GT if the available points were less? The tourneys need more than just the local players to survive, at least for LOTR.

One of my small concerns is setting standards for terrain. I know it makes for a good ice breaker to ask your opp. how he plays certain pieces of terrain, but it sometimes irks me when, say a ranged army really pushes for the best rules that benefit them for say a forest piece. then again the trees not being stuck to the bases makes it a pain to move people thru. Playing by the tree is a tree and you go by LOS, then you might have to take turns setting up each tree on a forest square so its even.

For instance, you set the rule that its 2 in the way rolls for shooting through a forest, and 1 for shooting into/from. you move your archers into a forest but are stuck rolling in the way rolls shooting out even thou they are on the edge and could clearly aim pretty well.

Plus, I have yet to play in a tournament where the inclines to get up a hill are called difficult. I know that its kinda a forgotten rule, but I feel it makes the hill terrain piece actually more usable than just a LOS blocker. I know horse armies will disagree with this one.

I guess whichever rules set you use they have their advantages but I would like to see clear cut guide lines for terrain.

I agree with Josh that part of the problem here is that your opponents are not familiar with LOTR rules. In LOTR, shooting is WYSIWYG. Tree stands are generally played as difficult terrain, but they do not block line of sight and do not block line of fire except for volley fire (in or out). Only individual trees do. I generally play that any figure on a tree base is partially obscured and that any figure touching one has benefit of cover unless viewed so that he is directly between the tree and the shooter. However, these archers in cover don't need to take ITW rolls when shooting since they simply shoot from cover. If the archer has to shoot past a different tree, simply use WYSIWYG -- if the arrow has to travel under or through the tree, use an ITW roll.

As for your remaining points, a fairly common interpretation seemed to develop over the year -- tree stands are difficult, rock bases are not except for rocks, etc. As you mentioned, rolling sides of hills were not considered difficult (although rough, eroded sides were).

I would not object to standard terrain interpretations assuming this could be done, but except for the Baltimore GT where there were a lot of new players, terrain was generally not an issue for me. When my opponent and I didn't agree we just rolled it off.

Last edited by febber on Thu Dec 06, 2007 12:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ya, i see your point about the GDs. I see your concerns over the harbringer rules etc, I think its similar to my terrain, issue, people have the general idea, but having it posted would drive the point home and avoid possible error.

if a points cap is adopted then lowering the points for GD tournaments would not make sense. It would basically be the death of the GD tourneys. If you could only go to 3 events for time and financial reasons, why would you go to a GD instead of a GT if the available points were less? The tourneys need more than just the local players to survive, at least for LOTR.

I agree; the GD tournaments MUST be worth as much as the GTS. Even if they didn't count as much, I would go anyway. I love playing this game any chance I get, especially in a tournament setting. At the most, if there is a seperate Chicago GT from the GDT, I'll attend 3 events (excluding adepticon). Placing a cap on participaion points is a good idea. It is true: we need more than local LotR players to keep our tourn aments alive. I pan on traveling once. We are a disfavored minority amongst gamers, mostly 40k and many fantasy players. We have to swell our tournaments full-maximum participation so that we can keep them. I love seeing new players post on these forums, and one of the functions of this player base is keeping our branch of the GW hobby alive. I want to see our tournaments live, and I think that if we can keep participation high and expand local player bases, we can do just that.

I have never played in a GT as they are all too far away for me to participate, however, I will comment on the GamesDay tournament from last year. We played four games with a 90 minute limit, and I felt this was far too rushed. I would have been much happier to only play three rounds with two hours alotted for each game. This would allow more time to discuss rules/terrain issues beforehand, and would have made for a much more relaxed and enjoyable game. As it was, every one of my games ended with me rushing to beat the clock, and it wasn't because I dallied around or failed to pursue the objectives. I even had one opponent who, after realizing that I was going to beat him, attempted to deny me the win by taking an inordinate amount time in moving his 3,247 hobbits and rolling the dice. Sheesh!

Let the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be
acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my Strength and my Redeemer.